MANDHIR SINGH Vs. GURJANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As per the averments made in the suit, the appellant defendants and proforma respondent entered into an agreement with the plaintiff-respondent on 31.7.2008 for sale of suit land measuring 42 kanals 10 marlas at the rate of Rs. 7,70,000/- per acre and received Rs. 10 lacs as earnest money and executed the agreement to sell in question in the presence of witnesses. It was further agreed that the appellants shall get the sale deed executed and registered in favour of the plaintiff-respondent on payment of balance sale consideration upto 30.4.2009. The plaintiff-respondent filed the instant suit alleging that the appellants and proforma respondent have failed to execute the sale deed in his favour as per the terms and conditions of the agreement in question.

(2.) In their defence, the appellants and proforma respondent admitted execution of the agreement in question and receipt of earnest money. However, it was their case that the plaintiff-respondent violated the terms and conditions of the agreement, as he failed to make payments on 30.4.2009 before the Sub-Registrar, Bhagta Bhaika at Rampura Phul and thus, they terminated the agreement in question vide legal notice dated 1.5.2009 served through registered AD post and therefore, the suit was liable to be dismissed.

(3.) After framing of the issues and recording evidence on behalf of the parties, the trial Court decreed the suit for specific performance of agreement in question vide judgment and decree dated 8.9.2012 and decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiff-respondent, recording a finding that the plaintiff-respondent was always ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement and in fact, the appellants have failed to appear before the Sub-Registrar concerned for execution and registration of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and they cannot take the benefit of their own wrong. They were duty bound to go to the office of the Sub-Registrar, Bhagta Bhaika on the stipulated date but instead, they went to Rampura Phul Tehsil so as to defeat the rights of the plaintiff-respondent and the notice dated 1.5.2009 on the part of the appellants to cancel the agreement shows their real intention to the effect that they themselves were not willing to get the sale deed registered in favour of the plaintiff-respondent.